The board that oversees Maryland’s signature education law is at odds with Gov. Wes Moore’s proposed funding cuts for needy students.

Members of the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future Accountability and Implementation Board unanimously agreed Thursday that they do not support Moore’s plans to reduce funding for students most at risk of not succeeding academically.

The board passed a motion declaring that it “will not recommend and does not support any reduction to Blueprint funding for at-promise students in any legislation before the General Assembly” and proposed retaining funding at the levels set under the original Blueprint bill passed in 2020.

Compensatory education, concentration of poverty, multilingual and special education students are those considered “at-promise.”

At a joint bill hearing Wednesday, Moore’s Chief of Staff Fagan Harris presented the governor’s proposed rollbacks to the Blueprint, including a pause on funding for teacher collaborative time until fiscal year 2030 and a two-year cut on annual funding increases for community schools.

Moore, who testified in favor of the original Blueprint for Maryland’s Future bill in 2020, did not appear at Wednesday’s joint hearing.

Democratic lawmakers were critical of the governor’s legislation — particularly the measure surrounding community school funding.

Harris said that the Moore administration is “open to any dialogue” regarding community schools and that the legislation was intended to be a starting point for moving forward.

Ike Leggett, the Accountability and Implementation Board chair, also testified Wednesday. He read a portion of his comments to board members Thursday afternoon.

“Yes, we have made encouraging progress, but there are still challenges facing our students with the greatest needs,” he read. “We cannot — we cannot — afford at this juncture to make adjustments that will have collateral and unintended consequences that result in funding less than what is called for in the Blueprint for community schools and our at-promise students.”

Before Thursday’s motion was adopted, Jennifer Lynch said that, as members of the program’s Accountability and Implementation Board, they have a responsibility to ensure that funding remains at the set level originally called for in the Blueprint so that schools can function as the law intends.

“At the same time,” she said, board members are responsible for evaluating outcomes to ensure the original funding levels are “providing the student success and movement and results that we would expect with this level of investment.”

Leggett said that until further results are captured and analyzed, the board will not know if the original funding under the bill is sufficient. He did say, however, that recent data showed special education, compensatory education, and multilingual students are falling “further and further behind.”

“We do know that, at the minimum, we run a very strong risk that the funding will be reduced, and if we are going to err, we should not err on the side that will potentially negatively impact those students at risk,” he said.

Leggett said the board differs on the governor’s approach to cut funding, but members agree “in part” on the pause on collaborative time.

Moore’s legislation puts a four-year pause on the implementation of teacher collaborative time, which would provide a 60-40 split between the time teachers spend in front of students in the classroom and the time allotted for them to prepare lessons.

Liz Zogby of the Maryland Down Syndrome Advocacy Coalition said during the public comment of Thursday’s board meeting that collaborative time is “the programmatic piece” of the Blueprint that is most likely to positively impact students with disabilities because it increases teacher capacity and improves their work conditions. She said advocates are worried that the four-year “pause” will become a “permanent disinvestment” in schools and students.

Have a news tip? Contact Hannah Gaskill at hgaskill@baltsun.com.